The Tainui Settlement
Full text of the form of apology from the Deed of Settlement between Her Majesty and Waikato-Tainui, signed 22 May 1995:1. The Crown acknowledges that its representatives and advisers acted unjustly and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with the Kiingitanga and Waikato in sending its forces across the Mangataawhiri in July 1863 and in unfairly labelling Waikato as rebels.
2. The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologises unreservedly for the loss of lives because of the hostilities arising from its invasion, and at the devastation of property and social life which resulted.
3. The Crown acknowledges that the subsequent confiscations of land and resources under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 of the New Zealand Parliament were wrongful, have caused Waikato to the present time to suffer feelings in relation to their lost lands akin to those of orphans, and have had a crippling impact on the welfare, economy and development of Waikato. 4. The Crown appreciates that this sense of grievance, the justice of which under the Treaty of Waitangi has remained unrecognised, has given rise to Waikato s two principles ‘i riro whenua atu, me hoki whenua mai’ (as land was taken, land should be returned) and ‘ko to moni hei utu mo to hara’ (the money is the acknowledgement by the Crown of their crime). In order to provide redress the Crown has agreed to return as much land as is possible that the Crown has in its possession to Waikato.
5. The Crown recognises that the lands confiscated in the Waikato have made a significant contribution to the wealth and development of New Zealand, whilst the Waikato tribe has been alienated from its lands and deprived of the benefit of its lands.
6. Accordingly, the Crown seeks on behalf of all New Zealanders to atone for these acknowledged injustices, so far as that is now possible, and, with the grievance of raupatu finally settled as to the matters set out in the Deed of Settlement signed on 22 May 1995 to begin the process of healing and to enter a new age of co-operation with the Kiingitanga and Waikato.
The Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims Report 1995
27 April 1995. AG McHugh (presiding), MTA Bennett, GM Te Heuheu, IH Kawharu, GS Orr, DJ SullivanThis report deals with 117 “minor” claims raised during the hearing of the major Ngai Tahu land and fisheries claims, already the subject of substantial reports in 1991 and 1992. The claims range from alleged unjust dealings concerning thousands of acres, to loss of a few acres through uncontrolled erosion. Because many of these claims originated from oral testimony, without supporting research, and because of the sheer number of claims involved, the tribunal departed from normal procedure and further research on the claims by tribunal staff and the Crown was not presented at further hearings, but rather compiled into a draft report, which was circulated for comment.
As already outlined in the 1991 report, large scale Crown purchases in the 1840s and the provision of tiny reserves left Ngai Tahu virtually landless, holding only some 35,757 acres or one-thousandth of their former tribal estate.
The “pitifully small” reserves were further eaten into by subsequent Crown actions. Takings for public works such as defence, roading, railways, scenery preservation, recreation, without adequate, or in most cases any consultation with the owners were an important source of land loss. Individualisation of landholdings through the operation of native land legislation, the objectives of which were criticised in theOrakei report, were also a major source of loss, facilitating alienation of what was intended to be the tribal estate. Other factors included drainage and related works destroying fishery reserves, and a statutory scheme for perpetual leases over some reserves which effectively took control away from the owners.
Crown efforts to alleviate the almost total landlessness which resulted, including the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906, could not be regarded as “serious undertakings”. Indeed the 1906 Act was a “cruel hoax”, with poor quality land being allocated, and some allocations never actually being implemented.
There is now an onus on the Crown to “restore a tribal endowment” to Ngai Tahu. This could include vesting in the tribe the ownership of Crown owned land, including conservation lands subject to management controls, and restoration of fishery resources. In negotiating a wider settlement both sides should have regard to localised Ngai Tahu concerns.
The report provides useful tables summarising findings and recommendations for the 100 claims considered (17 matters being put aside because of insufficient information). Important specific recommendations were:
Some 6 acres of land on the Otakou peninsula at Taiaroa Head, taken under public works legislation for defence purposes and not returned when no longer required, should be revested in the former owners, subject to conditions regarding the protected albatross colony now located there (the initiative of the local council to vest a large part of the colony land in local Ngai Tahu was also supported);
Some 122 acres at Maranuku near Kaka point township taken for a scenic reserve should be returned to the original Maori owners;
Some 592 acres at Mount Hedgehope, taken for a television transmitter site in 1964, most of which was subsequently leased for forestry, should be returned to the original owners;
Persons entitled to over 1658 acres of land under landless natives legislation in blocks allocated at Wanaka and Hawea, but which were never granted, should be given land of equivalent value elsewhere; The Whakapoai block of 1600 acres in the Heaphy valley, set aside under landless natives legislation, but never granted, should be vested in descendants of those originally entitled;
Waitutu incorporation, owning valuable indigenous forest land granted under landless natives legislation, should be permitted to market timber from the land, or be compensated for loss of milling opportunities. Costs to the incorporation to date of proceedings to gain permission to utilise the timber should be reimbursed;
Surveys of the Port Adventure and Toitoi blocks, comprising some 17,400 acres and allocated under landless natives legislation should be completed and the lands vested in persons entitled;
Tutaepatu lagoon of some 49 hectares at Woodend beach should be vested in Ngai Tahu ownership and jointly managed with the Crown;
The Wainono lagoon on the Waihao River of some 335 hectares, vested in the Department of Conservation, should be developed in partnership with Ngai Tahu of south Canterbury as a traditional fishery resource. A similar arrangement should be reached over the Waikouaiti Lagoon of some 61 hectares near Hawkesbury, also owned and managed by the Department of Conservation.
Treaty principles considered
The tribunal reiterated its finding from the 1991 report that the Crown had a Treaty obligation to provide sufficient land for the present and future needs of the tribe in the initial purchases of NgaiTahu lands. The Crown also had an obligation to actively protect the meagre tribal estate which remained after these purchases. Because it heard no argument on the matter, the tribunal did not consider whether the guarantee not to disturb rangatiratanga might be overridden by the grant of kawanatanga when it came to compulsory takings for public works. An interesting development was a finding that Article 3 requires that Maori land owners must be afforded the same rights as non-Maori landowners. This comment was made in respect of consultation requirements for public works takings being less stringent for Maori than for non-Maori, and former Maori Affairs legislation which allowed “unproductive” Maori land to be taken over and sold, when no similar provisions existed for non-Maori land. In one claim relating to lands allocated for landless natives where ownership was still unresolved after 90 years despite almost continuous negotiations, the tribunal found a breach of the Treaty partly in the lengthy delay to achieve a settlement.
Public works legislation
24 claims concerned public works takings. While the importance of public works was not disputed, the tribunal found fault with this legislation which, until the 1970s, failed to provide for adequate notification and consultation with Maori where Maori land was proposed to be taken. Nor were Maori required to be notified, or lands returned, when lands were no longer required for the purposes for which they were taken. Whether the Treaty guarantee concerning rangatiratanga prevents any compulsory taking of Maori land was not argued, but the tribunal commented that Treaty principles indicate that, in future, compulsory acquisition of Maori land should be “exercised only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort in the national interest”, the interest taken should be less than the freehold, and if the freehold, then that question be determined by a body independent of the Crown. The tribunal also recommended that:
the Public Works Act be amended to provide that it be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;
Crown and local authorities be expressly authorised to acquire a lease, licence, or other easement over, or enter into a joint venture arrangement in respect of Maori land required for public purposes, instead of acquiring the freehold of the land.
The tribunal made no comment on the government policy, contained in its recent settlement proposals, that conservation lands would be used in only limited cases to settle claims. In recommending areas of Taiaroa Head be returned to Maori, subject to existing conservation trusts and management, it found that area to fit the policy of returning only “discrete” sites. However the tribunal thought there was a lack of understanding on all sides of the legal options now available for joint conservation management regimes. It concurred with the views of a former Director-General of Conservation that Crown ownership is not a pre-requisite of protection of the national interest in conservation in any land. A suggested model was use of the Nga Whenua Rahui Kawenata regime under s77A Reserves Act 1977 allowing land to be revested in the Crown subject to subsisting interests. Under Te Ture Whenua Maori 1993, ss134 (Crown land can be revested in Maori), 338 (creation of a Maori reservation) and 340 (trustees can include persons from a local authority), such land can then be returned to Maori ownership, with a management regime for conservation values maintained.
Resource Management Act 1991
The report reiterated comments of the tribunal in the Ngawha geothermal report that more directive provisions concerning consideration of Treaty principles are required in the Resource Management Act. However, it considered that Act as laying the groundwork for proper recognition of Treaty rights and noted a “perceptible change in public attitudes” in particular with the Department Conservation.
For several claims the tribunal declined to make recommendations where there were validgrievances because the lands concerned were now in private hands. This included some local authority lands (a point some councils were eager to make), although the tribunal commented that Crown owned reserves whose management has been passed to a local authority under the Reserves Act do not fall within the private land exception provided for in the 1993 amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
Government reserved lands policy
The tribunal was critical of the recently announced policy to resolve claims concerning reserved lands under perpetual lease, saying it fell short of a just and proper settlement in requiring lessors to wait from 42-63 years for leases to terminate and to pursue compensation claim through the tribunal process, while lessees were guaranteed some compensation for the loss of their perpetual rights.
Maori Affairs legislation
The tribunal considered in detail one claim concerning a few acres alienated via sections 387 and 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 which allowed land deemed to be “unproductive” to be compulsorily vested in the Maori Trustee.
No similar provisions existed for compulsory utilisation of idle European land so the legislation breached article 3 of the Treaty. This finding could be applied to many sites throughout the country where this provision was applied. In this case the land was however now in private hands, so no recommendation was made.
Future claims and hearings
The report ends the substantive hearing of the broad Ngai Tahu claim registered as Wai 27. However, the tribunal noted that some matters were incompletely considered in this report, and there is no bar on further incidental claims being received and heard from Ngai Tahu. The tribunal also indicated a willingness to hold a further hearing concerning remedies, should this be required. It urged the Crown and Ngai Tahu to make one further effort to forward their presently stalled negotiations.
Disposal of Crown land in the Eastern Bay of Plenty
5 May 1995, Wai 64 & Ors. CJ Durie for the tribunal members sittingIn July 1994 the tribunal began hearings of the claims of Ngati Awa, Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and other groups in the eastern Bay of Plenty. In the course of proceedings, the claimants sought an early recommendation that Crown assets in the region not be sold pending the tribunal s final report.
Found: the hearings to date had satisfied the tribunal that these groups have “significant and compelling claims”, mainly concerning confiscations last century. These claims are unique in that; confiscations were large despite few Maori being involved in fighting; lands of loyal groups were taken; no compensation has ever been received, as it has in other districts (including the establishment of tribal trust boards, which have given other groups a “competitive edge”).
“It is now well established in Treaty law, that compensation should be payable where serious past breaches of the Treaty are proven, that the return of land where practicable, is an important item in any relief package, and that the Crown should not divest itself of properties without a protective scheme for recovery, where claims justifying substantial compensation are likely to be proven.” The claims here were likely to be proven and justify substantial compensation.
While not determining the issue, the tribunal had doubts that conditions of a land banking system proposed by the Crown, and not yet accepted by the claimants, were “fair and reasonable” or consistent with Treaty principles. Conditions included a requirement that the cost of acquiring and maintaining properties be offset against claim settlements; that land cannot be withdrawn from the bank without Crown consent; that land be banked as is where is; that it is the first land used in any settlement; that a cap is set on the value which can be put in the bank; that the bank is reviewed every 12 months with the Crown reserving the right to cancel the bank and free properties for sale. The conditions as a whole create “impossible situations” for claimants. A studied selection is required yet cannot be undertaken when claimants must respond as properties are advertised for sale. There were no difficulties concerning iwi representation, and overlaps in tribal interests could be readily accommodated in the interim pending a final tribunal report. Accordingly the disposal of Crown assets in the area without adequate protective arrangements being in place would be contrary to the principles of the Treaty, and no sales should proceed at this stage.
Fisheries Allocation Claims Wai 447 and 485, Memorandum following second hearing
22 May 1995. CJ Durie for the tribunal members sittingThis memorandum concerned whether the tribunal had authority to hear the claim from urban Maori regarding the allocation of the Sealords fisheries settlement assets (Wai 485), and whether to proceed with a hearing in light of submissions that the commission had not yet settled any definite policy for allocation. Held: despite s6(7) Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which provides that tribunal may not inquire into or make any finding or recommendation on the Deed of Settlement or any enactment to the extent it relates to commercial fishing, “we consider that an inquiry into the urban claim does not or need not involve an inquiry into the Deed or a finding on whether the Deed is inconsistent with the Treaty. It calls only for an interpretation of the Deed, not an amendment to it. Alternatively, it is only to the extent that the urban claimants may call for what would amount to an amendment to the Deed that the Tribunal is unable to consider the urban claim.” On the question whether references to “iwi” in the Deed could encompass urban groups, it was noted that the term was used in the Treaty Preamble to refer to Pakeha in the sense of “the people of a place”. The equivalent for Maori “tribes” was “hapu”. Therefore even though “iwi” is now commonly used to mean groups of common descent, it is arguable its application to urban groups would be a classical and not a new use of the term.
Counsel for the commission had argued a tribunal hearing should not proceed because the commission had not irrevocably committed itself to one model of allocation with mana whenua mana moana as a basic principle. The tribunal canvassed conflicting information on the point and found that it was arguable that “mindsets had developed or policies and proposals been sufficiently established to preclude the full and impartial examination of alternatives or agreement on basic principles.” It was also arguable that a lack of agreement in fundamental issues might affect the work of the commission including interim distributions. Accordingly the hearing should proceed.
Wanganui District Council v Tangaroa & Others
CP 2/95, 16 May 1995, HC Wanganui. Heron JThis action was brought against 3 persons as “ostensible leaders or spokespersons”, of the persons who, on 28 February 1995, had abruptly occupied Moutoa Gardens, a site of just over 2 acres in Wanganui. The Council sought a declaration as to title and orders for possession of the site. Ancillary orders for injunctions were also sought to direct people to leave the site and remove buildings and other items. The 3 representative occupiers took no part in the proceedings. The court appointed an amicus curiae to assist it, who put the defendants case “proactively” within the limits of that role and of time. The Attorney- General obtained leave to intervene.
Held: Early maps, missionary accounts and photos show Paikatore pa as a river bank site adjacent to and a little south west of the “marketplace” – the Moutoa Gardens of today. The pa was an area used for trade rather than being a permanent settlement and was close by but not within the confines of the triangle that represents Moutoa Gardens. The Gardens site was undoubtedly included in the purchase of land at Wanganui by Donald McLean in 1848, following an earlier NZ Company acquisition which had been investigated by Commissioner William Spain. The deed of sale placed no emphasis on the Gardens site, although making other reserves.
The Gardens became Crown land following the purchase. In 1880 the site was vested in the Borough of Wanganui. There was over this period a ” singular absence of any suggestion that the land was occupied as a pah with accompanying marae” and photographic evidence suggested “quite the contrary” (pre- European times, about which there was no evidence, excepted).
There was however considerable trading by Maori and European on or about the area of Moutoa Gardens. A landing place was also required in conjunction with attendance at Native Land Court sittings. There was Parliamentary debate about the need for a landing site in this vicinity. Eventually an “impracticable” area was set aside on the river bank above the Gardens site. Documentation of these events also did not refer to a traditional pa with accompanying marae. In 1980 the Gardens were gazetted as a historic reserve.
The court noted that the repeal of s158 Maori Affairs Act 1953, which prevented challenges to Crown grants, allowed a wide inquiry into the history of this site. It was a matter of regret however that, being “private land”, the site is excluded from the Waitangi Tribunal s recommendatory function, despite the large Crown involvement in its history.
Three possible attacks on the Council s apparent title were considered:
that s79 Land Transfer Act 1952 (adverse occupation) applied; there was no evidence of actual occupation, but rather of sporadic and shared use of the site for depositing goods etc:
that s81 Land Transfer Act 1952 (error or fraud in the title) applied; although the site was designated a marketplace but never used for one, neither the council or Crown were never called on to put it to this use, and such an argument goes to correction of title, rather than a challenge to it. Nor could a trust in favour of Maori use be established on the evidence:
that common law aboriginal title had not been extinguished; even allowing for Commissioner Spain s promise to Maori that all their pa sites would be reserved, there was no evidence on the balance of probabilities that Moutoa Gardens were more than an extension of a temporary village on the riverbank, as one of the defendants had in fact admitted. Other pa were at the time clearly delineated on maps, and the area for Paikatore was marked as clearly outside the Moutoa Gardens. The Gardens came to be a site for multiracial gatherings of importance to all people of Wanganui. A Wanganui historian recalled no challenge to council ownership being recorded until 1995.
A mayoral letter to the police in March 1995 could not be construed as a licence, any temporary licence if it existed being well and truly revoked by this time. The Gardens had not been mentioned in two claims before the Waitangi Tribunal, one concerning the river and one Whanganui land, but there was no reason hearings of the land claim could not consider the Gardens, although having to stop short of making any recommendation concerning them. The court, while being aware of “overall treaty obligations the Courts have asked others to observe”, rejected a submission that a final declaration as to title not be made, because of the need for finality of this urgent matter. However the finding that the council was the owner of the land was limited to the purpose of the proceedings, ie the finding as to title was not a determination of an application for relief under ss79 & 81 Land Transfer Act 1952.
As to remedy, the court noted past council efforts to meet regularly with a Maori consultative group, and afford Maori concerns a unique position among community concerns, and the lack of any reference to ownership issues in those consultations prior to February 1995.
Where the law is breached the court must grant remedies to litigants without fear or favour, and cannot weigh up the public acceptability of any order it might make, even if many desire a negotiated outcome. Accordingly, the council was declared the owner of Moutoa Gardens and granted an order for possession, making the present occupiers trespassers. The occupiers were injuncted to leave the land taking personal property and dismantling any structures.
[ed: since this case, the occupiers have of course left the gardens and dismantled structures, after negotiations with the police. A claim (Wai 505, received 12 April 1994) has been filed with the Waitangi Tribunal relating to the purchase of the Wanganui and Waitotara blocks, which covers the Moutoa Gardens. The tribunal is seeking further particulars and research will be required before the claim is heard (direction, 15 May 1995)]
Banks & Anor v Waikato Regional Council & Carter Holt Harvey Forests Ltd
A31/95, 20 April 1995 Sheppard JAn appeal against a decision granting a resource consent to harvest pine trees and construct temporary roads in 268 hectares of land on the Whangamata Peninsula. The forest was a former State forest, now under a Crown forestry licence containing conditions regarding waahi tapu and covenants to protect them.
Held: allegations that preparatory roading work, undertaken before the present application for a consent, had destroyed important sites, were overstated. Consultation with local Maori had been undertaken about those works and Historic Places Trust permission secured to alter sites. The present appeal should not be a retrospective challenge to that permission. For the present consent adequate consultation with tangata whenua had been undertaken. If there were conflicting claims to tangata whenua status in the area, the local council had no authority to decide these. The tribunal rejected the notion that reliable indentification of tangata whenua could be obtained from the claims register of the Waitangi Tribunal (the appellants having lodged a claim to the forest). Similar statements in Tawa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council A18/95 were followed.
The forestry company as applicants had talked to all who claimed an interest. There was no duty to consult about the preparatory works in relation to the present application for consent to harvest the trees. The tribunal adopted conclusions in the Tawa case that the council as consent authority could not consult with tangata whenua. Council staff had adequately reported to the council tangata whenua concerns.
After having earlier agreed to the granting of a resource consent, it was clear the appellants had had a change of mind and the appeal was designed to provide a vehicle for further negotiations to achieve more stringent conditions. In these circumstances the appeal was vexatious. Claims before the Waitangi Tribunal could not be taken into account either in proceedings before the tribunal or by the consent authority.Haddon  NZRMA 49 and Greensill v Waikato Regional Council followed. The resource consent, containing 6 conditions specifically to protect Maori interests, was not inconsistent either with regional policy statements or district plans. Proposed amendments to increase the stringency of these conditions were all rejected, several because they looked to activities not governed or affected by the resource consent (eg a requirement for an archaeological survey over the whole of the 13,000 hectare forest). The tribunal cancelled as ultra vires a consent condition requiring ongoing compliance by Carter Holt with an agreement between them and local Maori, since the power of consent authorities to impose conditions may not be used to enforce private agreements, but only for public purposes. The term of the consent was extended by the tribunal to take account of delay caused by the appeal.
Report of the Representation Commission 1995
27 April 1995The commission largely confirmed the earlier boundaries for the 5 Maori seats except for allowing an objection of A Waaka and 193 others that the boundary between Te Puku O Te Whenua and Te Tai Tonga be adjusted to preserve the integrity of Ngati Kahungunu. Wairarapa is now fully within Te Puku O Te Whenua. Most of Horowhenua goes to Te Tai Tonga which now substantially encompasses Muaupoko and Ngati Raukawa. The boundary around the Shannon area was adjusted to allow unification of the Ngati Kahu iwi. The commission rejected an objection regarding the inclusion of the Chatham Islands in the proposed Te Tai Tonga electorate, ruling that tribal connections of the Chathams people with Taranaki were not the only relevant ones.
Deed of Settlement. Her Majesty the Queen in right of NZ and Waikato-Tainui
22 May 1995This deed implements the Head of Agreement document signed in December 1995 (see MLR Dec 1994-Jan 1995). Waikato-Tainui forgo full redress for raupatu (confiscation) losses estimated by them at $12 billion. A full apology from the Crown is laid out. Briefly, redress is provided in 2 forms:
Settlement properties of some 19,040 hectares will be transferred to a Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust, a charitable trust established by the existing Tainui Maori Trust Board. Some properties will be subject to lease back arrangements. If the lease terms cannot be agreed an independent arbitrator can be called in.
Establishment by the Crown of a Waikato Land Acquisition Trust which will have a capital sum of $170 million, minus the value of the 19,040 hectares settlement properties, and various sundry amounts (leaving by some estimates about $60-70 million). The capital will be transferred over 5 years. This trust will have a right of first refusal over freehold surplus Crown properties in the Tainui claim area held by various listed Crown agencies. Legislation will provide that this right will be noted on titles to these surplus properties.
The deed is conditional on legislation being introduced to effect many matters, including the removal of resumptive memorials on titles in the claim area, the cessation of the annuity to the Tainui Maori Trust Board (the Board is expected to be dissolved by legislation at some future time), discontinuance of other “overlapping” claims in the claim area. Tainui claims to the Waikato River (including marginal land strips adjacent to the river), remain, as do claims to West Coast harbours and the Wairoa and Waiuku blocks. Waikato-Tainui Treaty rights “including rangatiratanga rights” remain unaffected. The Tainui mandate through the Maori Queen is noted, and the term Waikato-Tainui is defined by a listing of 33 hapu.
Appeals to the Privy Council. Report of the Solicitor-General to the Cabinet Strategy Committee on Issues of Termination and Court Structure
5 May 1995. Crown Law OfficeThe S-G did not consult with Maori, but found most judges of the Maori Land Court opposed to abolition of the right to appeal, suggesting instead that the matter should be determined by Maori, perhaps by reference to the Waitangi Tribunal. However the S-G found abolition would have no practical impact on Maori opportunities to pursue claim settlements or on Crown Treaty obligations. If abolition occurred, provision should be made to replace present appeal rights from the Maori Appellate Court to the Privy Council with an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[ed: Cabinet has since made an "in principle" decision to abolish appeals to the Privy Council]
Maori Reserved Land Consultative Working Group
10 May 1995. Minister of Maori AffairsGeorge McMillan, Peter Charleton, John Larmer, Paul Morgan, and Lyn Williams were announced as a group to provide comment to officials on technical matters concerning the implementation of the government policy to settle reserved lands issues. Among other matters, they will provide advice on the procedure that occurs in the event Maori lessors are unable to purchase lessee improvements at the end of 2 further lease terms (ie 42-63 years) and on “any other issues which might expedite the outcomes at no cost to the Crown”. The group will report in July. Legislation will be introduced in September 1995.
Recent speeches on sovereignty
Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations Hon D Graham; “Over the years Maori have raised a number of arguments against the assumption of sovereignty by the British Crown. …. None of these arguments has any validity. The simple fact is that the British Crown s assumption of sovereignty, assisted certainly in part by the Treaty, unquestionably succeeded andit has as a matter of international law, lasted. In other words, what is, is. A revolution in New Zealand has occurred, … ‘Revolution rests upon what is done, not what is legal or necessarily moral or just’.”PM Hon JB Bolger Gisborne 13 May 1995; “It must be clear that the Government will not entertain any division of sovereignty of Parliament, nor substantive power-sharing of a kind which would involve a Maori Parliament or separate legal or taxation systems. We do not recognise the right of any group of New Zealanders, … to determine their destiny regardless of the state of which they are a part. We do not believe that the Treaty of Waitangi sanctions notions of Maori sovereignty arising from self-determination. This would be secession – the assumption of sovereign powers by a body which separates from the existing state. … Understanding this, I need equally to say that the way that national sovereignty is actually exercised, through Parliament, is not a matter of absolutes. Its powers are delegated to other bodies and can be exercised in ways that mean, for certain activities, the parties involved substantially manage their own affairs, or co-manage them in association with the Crown.”